120 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



show wherein it is believed to be defective in nature. The numbers refer 

 to those used in brackets in the table : — 



I. — Speyer has pointed out, in the first edition of Edwards's Catalogue, 

 the variability in the antennal knob in the genus Pafuphila as at present 

 characterized. Close examination will show that in Leo?iardus, 

 Nemorum, Fhyiceus, Uncas, Comma, et al., the bent portion is not more 

 than y^ as long as the basal portion of the knob, and in Leonardus it is 

 often a thick cone-shaped piece. In an example of Metea, in the collec- 

 tion of the American Entomological Society, the same cone-shaped 

 termination is present, while in a species in the collection formerly in my 

 possession, the terminal spine was nearly as long as the basal portion. 

 Speyer accredits to Metea a thick blunt cone. 



2. — In describing the new genus Luitneria (now SysAisea), Speyer 

 compares it with Thanaos ( Niso7iiades) and I have here, consequently, 

 used the crenulation of the wings as a differentiating character. This, 

 however, will not do in the case of Nessus, which Mr. Edwards now 

 strangely places with Pyrgus. In my opinion both Zatnpa and Nessus 

 belong to one genus, and the erection of the genus Systasea was an 

 unnecessary burden to the synonymy. 



3. — I have made no allowance for the genus Leucochitonea for the 

 simple reason that I do not believe it can be separated from Pyrgus along 

 any lines so far accepted by Speyer and others as affording generic 

 demarkation. A specimen of Pyrgus oceanus^ formerly in my possession, 

 has one antenna true to Speyer's rule, while the other is distinctly as in 

 Eudamus pylades. This might be taken to be a sport were it not for the 

 fact that it is along this line that the species of the genus, otherwise 

 closely related, are divergent. 



Tlie genera Pyrrophaga, Erycides and Megathymus, I have not at- 

 tempted to define here. It has been my purpose simply to compile a 

 table that would aid in the separation of those species commonest in 

 American collections which my acquaintance with such collections leads 

 me to know are most frequently misnamed and misplaced. In subse- 

 quent papers I shall discuss certain specific differences which are most 

 likely to be confusing to students of this little-understood family. 



